Kary Mullis' Next-Gen Cure for Killer Infection

Yep, I agree.
I'm not really up to speed on the arguments. It seems like semantics is part of the problem.

People can have HIV and not have AIDS. Aids is a diagnosis when you happen to have HIV and other diseases. The AIDS numbers jumped rapidly in woman
when cervical cancer was added to the list. We then were told that the AIDS virus had exploded amongst the female population. More diseases have been
added to the list.

They are then called AIDS patients. And treated as such. I don't know but something seems wrong about that.

I've also heard that that HIV is often misdiagnosed?

I'm not qualified to argue it. So I won't. But I've heard some strong cases.

There is no such thing as an "AIDS" virus. I can't prove a negative. Show me one.

By definition, AIDS ( a "syndrome") is a collection of symptoms and observations that are related to failure of the immune system to attack
otherwise defensible pathogens.

It's as if the immune system is "worn out," or gives up" to normal crap that can turn into something bad, when it wouldn't otherwise. It is
"acquired."

AIDS is not a necessary consequence of HIV, although the virus renders the host susceptible to one or more of any infections that most people easily
fend off. "AIDS" is a handy tag or label to seek funding and attention. In and of itself, it is meaningless. It is nothing more than a
DESCRIPTION!

Happy?

jw

[edit on 22-11-2009 by jdub297]

I'm not debating that a syndrome is diagnosed as a combination of symptoms. Those symptoms are often tied to one underlying cause. In the case of
AIDS, the cause is a destructiong of CD4+ T-cells. HIV destroys these cells, and when untreated, leads to AIDS.

I don't understand why you're resorting to ad hominems when I've not done the same to you. I'm stating the well-researched, well-supported medical
position.

If HIV were NOT the cause of AIDS, why do retroviral medications work? Can you explain that for me?

Yep, I agree.
I'm not really up to speed on the arguments. It seems like semantics is part of the problem.

People can have HIV and not have AIDS. Aids is a diagnosis when you happen to have HIV and other diseases. The AIDS numbers jumped rapidly in woman
when cervical cancer was added to the list. We then were told that the AIDS virus had exploded amongst the female population. More diseases have been
added to the list.

They are then called AIDS patients. And treated as such. I don't know but something seems wrong about that.

I've also heard that that HIV is often misdiagnosed?

I'm not qualified to argue it. So I won't. But I've heard some strong cases.

A patient is diagnosed as having AIDS when the titer (a measure of particle concentration in the blood) drops below 400. Anything above this is
considered "immunosuppressed". Anything below 400 is "immunodeficient". Many, many things can cause someone to become immunocompromised or
immunodeficient, from congenital leukemias to genetic defects in metabolism. However, the term given SPECIFICALLY to the immunodeficiency caused by
HIV is AIDS, as it is "acquired" (hence the A in the acronym), rather than "developed", like a random chance infection.

He made his claim in the mid 1990s, I believe. HIV had been imaged prior to that and after that. In all actuality, from what I've read about Dr.
Mullis, hsi claims have more to do with his association with Dr. Duesberg, another HIV skeptic. Dr. Dueberg also served as an advisor to the South
African government relating to their policy of denying antiretroviral drugs to their public health program, resulting the hundreds of thousands of
deaths.

Etienne de Harven, MD, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto

PROBLEMS WITH ISOLATING HIV

How can we best help Africa? How can we set priorities aimed at bringing under control what is described as an AIDS epidemic? For twenty years, all
AIDS research has been based on the HIV hypothesis. Do we now have reasons to question this hypothesis? Yes, because there is a major problem with
isolation and purification of HIV. The major problem being that, in spite of innumerable claims to the contrary, this retrovirus has never been
isolated nor purified in a scientifically acceptable manner that would satisfy the classic requirements of virology.

Read through the link you posted. They "contamination" they're discussing is from the host cell, not other antigens. They are concerned because
having host cell contamination in cultures would make it harder to create pure samples, presumably for the vaccines that were beginning development at
the time of that writing.

No where in that link does it suggest that these contaminations call into question HIV's link to AIDS.

Well, I am just a layman. When I hear a number of academics question whether it has actually been isolated to the conditions met for virology.

All I can do is say is that the issue it is not resolved. If the egg heads can't agree. We won't resolve it here.

From what I understand, it can't be clearly categorized as a retrovirus?
Not sure.

I'm just willing to listen to the arguments and make what I can out of my limited knowledge in the area. Not Much I afraid.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by squiz]

An incredibly small minority don't believe HIV has been clearly isolated, sure. I would wager this minority is even smaller than those who don't
think we landed on the moon, or those who think Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.

In short, there will always be a loud, fringe minority who think strange things for various reasons. A PhD or an MD are not an exemption from nuttery.

Collect the prize? seems fair, isolate the virus according to the original requirements. And the professor above doesn't seem to think so?
It's not about providing evidence it's the lack of it that seems to be the problem.

Collect the prize? seems fair, isolate the virus according to the original requirements. And the professor above doesn't seem to think so?
It's not about providing evidence it's the lack of it that seems to be the problem.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by squiz]

Well, then I think they need to explain why antriretroviral treatment targeted specifically to the RNA sequence and protein inside HIV works for
HIV/AIDS patients.

Barré-Sinoussi and Montagnier discovered HIV in the lymph nodes of recently infected patients. It was being produced in large quantities in white
blood cells and it induced the death of cells of a kind that was missing in patients suffering from AIDS. HIV was like a chameleon. Each patient
carried a unique virus variant, which could hide in the host cell genome. Barré-Sinoussi and Montagnier's discovery explained the progression of the
disease and its communicability, enabling them to establish the connection between HIV and AIDS.

Sorry must have missed the part where he isolated it. Says it's like a chameleon, a unique variant carried by everyone, hiding in host cells.
Doesn't sound to isolated to me?

Of course you'd never see it in the U.S. the propaganda machine is too great.

Judge Hackmann announced the statement of the "Bundesgesundheitsbehrde",
the Federal German Health Authorities, which says that in connection with
AIDS there has never been isolated a virus (Dr. Marcus,
Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) Berlin). The judge figured out that the
German Bundestag had been backing the lie of the Federal Health
Authorities (RKI, Dr. Marcus, 9.3.95) about a successful isolation of a
virus in connection with AIDS in the course of a petition (Art. 17,
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, Pet.
5-13-15-2002-010526).
The trial was based on actions of the defendant which were caused by the
misleading statement made by the RKI (Dr. Marcus) on the 9th March 1995,
that there were photographs of the isolated HI-virus inside the
publications of Montagnier (1983) and Gallo (1984). The judge proved the
untruthfulness of this statement using Dr. Marcus' statement itself. The
court imposed a suspended sentence of 8 months of jail because of
attempted coercion of the authorities to adhere and act according to law
and order.

Barré-Sinoussi and Montagnier discovered HIV in the lymph nodes of recently infected patients. It was being produced in large quantities in white
blood cells and it induced the death of cells of a kind that was missing in patients suffering from AIDS. HIV was like a chameleon. Each patient
carried a unique virus variant, which could hide in the host cell genome. Barré-Sinoussi and Montagnier's discovery explained the progression of the
disease and its communicability, enabling them to establish the connection between HIV and AIDS.

Sorry must have missed the part where he isolated it. Says it's like a chameleon, a unique variant carried by everyone, hiding in host cells.
Doesn't sound to isolated to me?

They say it's "like a chameleon" because the outer segment of it's coating proteins can mutate, which is why patients can become less responsive
to specific antiretroviral drugs, and is also why patients typically take cocktails and routinely have their viral load tested. Again, you're
misunderstanding the science in the article and using this misunderstanding to see things that aren't there.

Of course you'd never see it in the U.S. the propaganda machine is too great.

This site also provides information on the "Aushwitz hoax", "earth energies", and "orgone". This should give you some idea of how reputable a
site whale.to is. I couldn't find any mention of this ruling in any reputable site, German or English. All I could find were reference to the
original whale.toi article or forum posts.

I've already shown that it's been isolated, both through papers and images, as well as a Nobel being awarded for said isolation. I don't know how
else I can prove it to you beyond sending you a sample to look at yourself, but that's both illegal and silly.

You like to attack everything but the actual subject matter don't you?
What about the court case? was it fake?

You tell me. It's your piece of evidence, which means you need to verify it's veracity. I couldn't find any solid support for it on a government o
site, a .org, or a .edu, which are typically more reliable as far as public records go. Why don't you give it a go, since YOU posted it?

How about this question then, has HIV ever been isolated, purified and cultured? The gold standard? These are the conditions met for
virology.

Has it been done? I can't find it.

Yes, it has been isolated. Several times, in fact. As I said yesterday in my very first post, a quick PubMed search yields the very papers that show
this isolation:

Those papers are all from the first half of the 1980s. Since then, we have gotten even clearer pictures, those these isolates were clear enough and
strong enough to show both the existence of the virus, as well as it's link to AIDS. As I said before, a quick search through PubMed.com will give
you more literature than you can shake a stick at, all from peer-reviewed journals viewed worldwide, both by dissenters and otherwise.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.